V
vardaquinn
Guest
Yeah, gee, imagine if Jesus did something…
- Status
V
vardaquinn
Guest
How about Bl. John Paul II?
I’m sure many charismatics have similar spiritual lives to the saints. Perhaps a Carmelite spirituality, like St. Teresa of Avila or St. Therese or St. John of the Cross.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
If you want to be traditional, I think you should be charismatic. As I pointed out before - what was the very FIRST thing that the Catholic Church ever did? They were filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke in tongues as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. The charismatic gifts are extremely traditional.
What, then, is traditionalism if it conflicts with the charismatic gifts?
I’m all for proper liturgical music (that is, music following the model of Gregorian chant), for tradition in the liturgy, for beautiful reverent liturgies, and Latin, and the option of the Tridentine Form of the Mass. I don’t see how this conflicts with the charismatic gifts. Could a “traditionalist” here please explain how this is so?
What, then, is traditionalism if it conflicts with the charismatic gifts?
I’m all for proper liturgical music (that is, music following the model of Gregorian chant), for tradition in the liturgy, for beautiful reverent liturgies, and Latin, and the option of the Tridentine Form of the Mass. I don’t see how this conflicts with the charismatic gifts. Could a “traditionalist” here please explain how this is so?
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Quotes from the documents of the Second Vatican Council:
Note about the above quote:
Notice it says “Extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after”. So… when you first read this, it seems that it’s saying that you shouldn’t seek extraordinary gifts. I was a bit shocked when I read that, because it seems to differ with what St. Paul says in Corinthians, which SAYS to seek spiritual gifts “especially that you might prophecy”.
BUT. I went into the original Latin, which reads: Dona autem extraordinaria non sunt temere expetenda www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2lumlat.htm
And guess what? That word temere is an adverb, and it means “by chance, randomly, without cause, rashly, thoughtlessly”. This is totally dropped from English translation.
So what is this really saying?
Dona = “gifts”, neuter second declension noun, accusative plural.
autem = “but, on the other hand, however”.
extraordinaria = “extraordinary” adjective, modifying “dona”
non sunt = are not
temere = “rashly, thoughtlessly, without cause” adverb
expetenda = “demand, ask for, exact (as a penalty)” third conjugation verb, and it’s a gerund, going with “dona” again.
Alright, so this reads something more like "Extraordinary gifts, however, are not to be rashly demanded."That’s a BIG difference.
“through receiving these gifts of grace [ex horum charismatum] …everyone of the faithful has the right and duty to exercise them in the church and in the world for the good of humanity and the building up of the Church.” Apostolicam actuositatem, #3
“so that all may more clearly recognize the talents with which God has enriched their souls, and then exercise the charismatic gifts which the Holy Spirit has conferred on them for the good of their sisters and brothers. Apostolicam actuositatem, # 30
They [the priests] are to test the spirits to see whether they are of God, discern with a sense of faith the manifold gifts, [charismata multiformia] both exalted and ordinary, that the laity have, acknowledge them gladly and foster them with care.” Presbyterorum ordinis, #9
“Accordingly, by means of the Holy Spirit, Who distributes His gifts [charismata] as He wishes for the good of all, the Lord Christ stirs up a missionary vocation in the hearts of individuals…." Ad gentes, #23
And this is what Bl. John Paul II says:
The epistles of St. Paul, among other sources, tell us of charisms in the early Church. Vatican II recalls this teaching of the Apostle and applies it to the Church’s daily life. In the people of God, both the hierarchy and the laity share in charismatic gifts that enable them to perform ‘different works and offices’ for the good of mankind and of all Christians. Wojtla, Karol. Sources of Renewal The Implementation of Vatican II.
- The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name.(110) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.
Note about the above quote:
Notice it says “Extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after”. So… when you first read this, it seems that it’s saying that you shouldn’t seek extraordinary gifts. I was a bit shocked when I read that, because it seems to differ with what St. Paul says in Corinthians, which SAYS to seek spiritual gifts “especially that you might prophecy”.
BUT. I went into the original Latin, which reads: Dona autem extraordinaria non sunt temere expetenda www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2lumlat.htm
And guess what? That word temere is an adverb, and it means “by chance, randomly, without cause, rashly, thoughtlessly”. This is totally dropped from English translation.
So what is this really saying?
Dona = “gifts”, neuter second declension noun, accusative plural.
autem = “but, on the other hand, however”.
extraordinaria = “extraordinary” adjective, modifying “dona”
non sunt = are not
temere = “rashly, thoughtlessly, without cause” adverb
expetenda = “demand, ask for, exact (as a penalty)” third conjugation verb, and it’s a gerund, going with “dona” again.
Alright, so this reads something more like "Extraordinary gifts, however, are not to be rashly demanded."That’s a BIG difference.
“through receiving these gifts of grace [ex horum charismatum] …everyone of the faithful has the right and duty to exercise them in the church and in the world for the good of humanity and the building up of the Church.” Apostolicam actuositatem, #3
“so that all may more clearly recognize the talents with which God has enriched their souls, and then exercise the charismatic gifts which the Holy Spirit has conferred on them for the good of their sisters and brothers. Apostolicam actuositatem, # 30
They [the priests] are to test the spirits to see whether they are of God, discern with a sense of faith the manifold gifts, [charismata multiformia] both exalted and ordinary, that the laity have, acknowledge them gladly and foster them with care.” Presbyterorum ordinis, #9
“Accordingly, by means of the Holy Spirit, Who distributes His gifts [charismata] as He wishes for the good of all, the Lord Christ stirs up a missionary vocation in the hearts of individuals…." Ad gentes, #23
And this is what Bl. John Paul II says:
The epistles of St. Paul, among other sources, tell us of charisms in the early Church. Vatican II recalls this teaching of the Apostle and applies it to the Church’s daily life. In the people of God, both the hierarchy and the laity share in charismatic gifts that enable them to perform ‘different works and offices’ for the good of mankind and of all Christians. Wojtla, Karol. Sources of Renewal The Implementation of Vatican II.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Most of your responses and questions here revolve around the NT. What you don’t seem to understand is that Catholicism is based on Scripture and Tradition. You may be confusing Protestantism with CAtholicism, since the Protestant sects are based on Scripture and the teachings of certain men who generally started sects based on their own interpretation of Scripture.I did not claim that it was. I said that there is no better testimony to the traditional nature of the charismatic experience than the New Testament. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. And they were charismatic Catholics.
While I disagree with you, I can also say that it is possible to be a very charismatic Catholic without being part of any “movement”.
Do you think the charismatic gifts described in the NT were part of a “movement”?
Yes, but why truncate one’s spiritual experience? It seems to me to come from fear.
What do you mean “so called”?! They are “so called” in the Holy Scripture!
Of course! But you don’t see the kind of expressions often that are witnessed in the NT…Why do you suppose that is? Why do you think the Apostles encouraged the charismatic experience?
You asked if the Charismatic gifts described in the NT were part of a movement. Well, in a sense, maybe they were, but I don’t know what the Church teaches regarding this. Certainly after the Apostolic age, there was no movement or teaching of the Church which encouraged Catholics to engage willfully in the Gits of the Holy Ghost. You can point to one or two saints who talked about it, but that’s not the same thing.
Your other question regarding…“why should we truncate our spiritual experience.?” Well, the reason for the existence of the Catholic Church is to see to the salvation of souls. There is nothing in Church teaching which says that we must have “spiritual experiences,” like those that you advocate, in order to gain Heaven. That’s what New-Agers believe, and Pagans, but not Catholics. If the Holy Ghost chooses to manifest these gifts, that’s fine. But it is not a part of Church teaching that we need to seek them out in order to save our souls.
Your last question refers to what I said about “so-called” Charismatic gifts. As I have before said, there’s no proof that what Charismatics are “manifesting” with their so-called gifts is really that of the Holy Ghost. You may “feel” that it is the Holy Ghost, but that’s not real evidence.
Charismatics seem to have the idea that traditional Catholics know nothing about how the Third Person of the Holy Trinity works in our lives. That’s just silly. The Holy Ghost actively works in the lives of Catholics without manifesting or channelling Him on cue. I depend on the Holy Ghost every day to help me. And there’s no head wagging or mumbling in tongues involved, either.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Ok. There is obvious proof that the Charismatics are manifesting these gifts, and obviously the Magisterium agrees with this (see the numerous quotes from John Paul II).
Listen to this. It goes through the charismatic gifts, and provides examples of them. ctkcc.libsyn.com/rcia_charisms_of_the_holy_spirit_dr_mary_healy_5_2_10
See, I’m sure you actually use the charismatic gifts without even knowing it (though obviously not tongues). You’re actually charismatic, despite all your objections.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Vardaquinn, we’ve been over this territory before regarding Pope John Paul ll and his personal endorsement of the Charismatic movement.
Thank you for offering the link, but I have no interest in it. I’m a Catholic - a traditional Catholic. I’m not a Charismatic/Pentacostal. One whole half of my family were Pentacostals. The “so-called” manifestations of the Holy Ghost are essentially the same for the Pentacostals as they are for Charismatics. No thanks.
And I’m not a Charismatic. Never will be. If for some reason the Holy Ghost chooses to manifest these gifts to me (which I will NEVER ask for), I would go straight to my priest, and do what he advises. My understanding of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity is what the Church has taught for many centuries, which has little to do with the seeking out of “gifts” of the Charismatics. There isn’t anything in tradition to support the intentional seeking out of these “gifts.”
I
InquisitorMax
Guest
I really think you’re on a hiding-to-nothing trying to convince traditionalists that Charismaticism has any value. It manifests itself in a way which is just about the polar opposite of what a traditionalist is looking for.
The TLM has clung on despite official opposition. It has only been formally announced recently that, hey, it’s not actually forbidden. Give it another 30 years and we’ll see where it goes.
Comparing the TLM to Charismatic practices is a non-starter. One’s a rule-based, formal Mass and the other is … whatever is moving the leader of the group at that time, I think.
It reminds me of the Medjugorje phenomenon. A group of people say they’re experiencing visions. Pious people flock to them. They pray intensely. Miracles happen. Doesn’t mean the underlying movement is OK. It just means that when pious people get together and pray for and expect miracles, they happen. Not to everybody, not all time, maybe not big ones but enough to keep the crowds coming back.
The TLM has clung on despite official opposition. It has only been formally announced recently that, hey, it’s not actually forbidden. Give it another 30 years and we’ll see where it goes.
Comparing the TLM to Charismatic practices is a non-starter. One’s a rule-based, formal Mass and the other is … whatever is moving the leader of the group at that time, I think.
It reminds me of the Medjugorje phenomenon. A group of people say they’re experiencing visions. Pious people flock to them. They pray intensely. Miracles happen. Doesn’t mean the underlying movement is OK. It just means that when pious people get together and pray for and expect miracles, they happen. Not to everybody, not all time, maybe not big ones but enough to keep the crowds coming back.
D
Denise1957
Guest
I, too, have been thinking that there’s similarity between Charismaticism, which seeks to supposedly manifest the Holy Ghost on cue, and how at Medjugorje the Blessed Mother is supposedly called up on cue, too. Both movements rely on spiritual experiences and phenomena.
B
Bigcat71
Guest
Well actually there is obvious proof that those in the charismatic movement are definitely manifesting something. Whether or not these gifts are indeed genuine is I feel the major stumbling block. I for one am not at all sure ALL manifestations are real and in fact I think a lot, maybe the majority are either totally faked by those manifesting them or they enter into a state of ecstacy similar to that of Voodoo Priests and Shamans of various cultures, or the manifestations are demonically influenced.
Those in the Charismatic Movement tend to play down those obvious dangers as being either insignificant or non existent. I cannot agree with that assesment.
There is also a complete and total difference in manifesting the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and being a member of the Charismatic Movement. The movement itself is totally different from manifesting these gifts and many if the not the majority of people that do are not part of the movement.
To me it is also telling that those in the movement sem to be able to call down the Holy Spirit amost at will, often to speak in tongues to the exclusion of amost everything else. Having had the regrettable oporutnity of actually attending several of these, I don’t really know what to call them, gatherings? perhaps, I can tell you, there was a lot of pressure put on a lot of the people to get with the program, including exhortations from the Priest and various lay people assisting him that people had to try harder …
I was under the impression that the Holy Spirit went where He wanted, when He wanted and affected who He wanted. I was unaware that he was at the beck and call of the movement.I have also noticed that there seems to be almost total acceptance of the statement that Pope John Paul II prayed in tongues. I would like someone to point me to an authoritative document, not a statement written by one with an obvious agenda, ie: Ralph Martin, which affirms that statement. I have little doubt that Pope John Paul II was familiar with the charisms of the Holy Spirit and that he endorsed the movement, with LIMITATIONS.is a documented fact.
That however, is a long long way from saying the he was a charismatic or a member of the movement himself.
S
Solemn_Sheep
Guest
Sorry John but I dont view you as an authority on what Jesus would have or wouldn’t have done. I personally do not like the whole wwjd saying since that type of thinking resembles the same type of thinking Christians had when they invented sola scriptura. Jesus’ actions are perfect and therefore can never be said to be what we sinners would do.so we should just let people claim our gifts are demonically inspired? I don’t think thats what Jesus would have done
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Well, that’s your decision. If you want to go against Scripture and the Magisterium… I don’t see what you stand to gain from closing yourself off to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. You’re clearly convinced of your own opinion, and it seems fruitless to try and change that.
@ InquisitorMax: What are traditionalists looking for? I’m a proponent of the TLM, and I attend it fairly frequently. I don’t think it’s at all incompatible with my charismatic spirituality.
@ BigCat71: I agree that you do not have to be a “member” to receive the charismatic gifts. In many ways, the charismatic movement has become almost a denominational thing - by the fault of both the charismatics and non-charismatics. And there are certainly many charismatics who may be described as clueless. Just because the movement is legitimate, doesn’t mean that all the members are.
Well, I mean unless Ralph Martin was lying… You can find mention of John Paul II’s praying in tongues in Hungry For God. And it may potentially be implied from this:
“This was my own spiritual initiation, so I can understand all these charisms. They are all part of the richness of the Lord. I am convinced that this movement is a sign of his action.” (speaking to international leaders of the Renewal in December of 1979)
I will get back to you.
S
Solemn_Sheep
Guest
I doubt that very much. I think the spirituality the saints had including the ones mentioned above would be viewed as radical by many of the Charistamtic Renewalists and the Traditionalists. The fasts, penances, prayers, holy silence, and a laundry list of other things practiced by saints made them rarities even amongst those in their own Orders.
I agree with all of this however what is the huge difference between the account of Pentecost in the Scriptures and the types of services taking place in the Charismatic Renewal? Points if you can tell me.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Well, I’m no judge of anyone’s spiritual life besides my own.
The music?I agree with all of this however what is the huge difference between the account of Pentecost in the Scriptures and the types of services taking place in the Charismatic Renewal? Points if you can tell me.
Well, Pentecost wasn’t a “service” or liturgy. I’m actually a bit unfamiliar with how charismatic services go, having not really attended them.
B
Bigcat71
Guest
Actually, I think the movement itself has become somewhat cultish, self protective and suspicious of those who haven’t as yet received the wonderful gifts that they have and who do not agree 100% with their position. Just as I am sad to say some Traditionalists have done.
People with an agenda, and Ralph Martin definitely has one, will often exagerrate and sometimes outright lie to try to gain support for their cause. As I said if someone could point me to an authoratative document in which Pope John Paul II himself said that he prayed in tongues then I would believe it. As it is, we have a few references of people who claim it happened or who claim that they know someone who saw it happen, etc. etc. So quite frankly, I don’t believe it happened.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
I know charismatics who are quite different, so I guess it depends where you go. People are different everywhere.
Well, I think it’s more likely that the handful of accounts of John Paul II praying in tongues with individuals are accurate then for Ralph Martin to simply outright lie that John Paul II prayed in tongues with them, and claimed that he prayed in tongues regularly - especially in a published work on the spiritual life. Especially since, knowing how John Paul II was, it seems rather likely even if there weren’t any accounts of it. I don’t know if he ever stated in any of his writing or books that he prayed in tongues, so…
It doesn’t matter hugely though. He certainly affirmed the validity and importance of the charismatic gifts, of which tongues has a place.
B
Bigcat71
Guest
It matters in that if it is repeated enough, people will tend to believe it and it will take on a life of it’s own, just as many other falsehoods have. It is telling that the Vatican itself has never confirmed this, nor did Pope John Paull II in any of his extensive writings.
And yes he did say there was a place for the Charismatic Movemnet.
With limitations; From EWTN
The Church clearly wishes to follow a middle course, between a rationalistic skepticism and a blind credulity in alleged workings of the Holy Spirit. In the past the Church had condemned what it called Pentecostalism, understood as the total dependence, even theologically, on the presence and manifestation of charisms. Such a dependence is blind, for it fails to allow itself to be guided by the full content of the faith and the judgement of the Church’s teaching authority. It is total when such “gifts” displace the means of grace in the life of the Christian, such as the sacraments. On the other hand, the Church cannot condemn charisms, since they are part of the patrimony of our apostolic faith. What we have seen in our time is the appearance of the Charismatic Renewal, an apparent outpouring of the extraordinary charisms. This doesn’t mean that one has to be a charismatic, that charismatics are better Catholics, or that every alleged charism is authentic. Yet, as the Council noted, the Church must respect the workings of God, discerning the authentic from the inauthentic.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Yet see above for what he says about the charismatic dimension of the faith. True, not every Catholic needs to hook up with the Charismatic Renewal. But every Catholic does need to use whatever charisms God has given him. And it seems very very foolish to reject the gift of tongues. If the grace is there - take it! Many individuals are just uncomfortable with the idea of the charismatic gifts. But read what St. Paul says! He says the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone (that is, those gifts he just mentioned in the last sentence) for the upbuilding of the Church. The charisms are put primarily at the service of the Church, and are a powerful means of evangelization.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
S
Solemn_Sheep
Guest
Well put and I agree, however should the practices of a group be exempt from scrutiny? Both Saint Teresa and Saint John where key in the reformation of the Carmelite Order and so I believe the same needs to be done within the Charismatic Renewal. I think they have the right idea but the way they are going about this renewal I believe is all wrong.
youtube.com/watch?v=yu8W1whUTpgThe music?
youtube.com/watch?v=IP8bfkHbzS8&feature=related
Now I will be the first to say I dont know if this is the norm but if it is do you think it resembles the spirituality of the saints or even that of Pentecost? Something tells me the Apostles service was a bit more solemn, quiet with fasting and prayer.
Tongues do have a place and I believe Saint Paul is really clear on what place they have and how they should be used. In services they should be used with an interpreter and for the edification of others. If this is not done then it should between the individual and God and they should be silent. The problem is people just read speaking in tongues and think its biblical but I have yet to see an interpreter of these “tongues.”
I dont think people are uncomfortable with the gifts of the Spirit but rather with the way in which the faithful are acting which most view including myself, is not in accordance to the instruction of Saint Paul regarding the proper use of these gifts.
- Status